- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 18:18:06 -0400
- To: ewallace@cme.nist.gov, www-webont-wg@w3.org
At 1:29 PM -0400 7/17/03, ewallace@cme.nist.gov wrote: >Jim Hendler wrote: > >>At 10:15 AM -0400 7/16/03, Jeff Heflin wrote: >... >>>Before I send the message I'd like to see if the WG has a preference on >>>whether or not we need to include some discussion of how OWL meets our >>>requirements somewhere in our document set. This was a theme that ran >>>throughout Ken's post. >>> >>>Jeff >>> >> >>I sort of like this idea - What about if we had an appendix to the >>reqs document that directed people to the appropriate document parts >>-- that way it wouldn't require a lot of new text? Could be a table >>like (these are random - not tracking the real things): >> >>O1 "Realized via mapping to RDF" http://sas/ >>O2 "Issue raised, but postponed" http://issues... >>... >>R1 "Realized via mapping to RDF" http://ref/... >>R2 "see owl:sameAs" http://guide/... > >Ken Lasky's email shows that something like this would be helpful. >Jim's suggested approach is concise and does the job. It does look >like fair amount of work to put together, though. > >-Evan If the WG decides to go to CR, I think this would be a good thing to do during CR (because to get to PR it would be good to show we filled all our requirements) and I think Ken would be okay with that -- if Jeff or someone else is willing to take resoponsibility for this, then I will be happy to compose such a response any takers? -- Professor James Hendler hendler@cs.umd.edu Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies 301-405-2696 Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab. 301-405-6707 (Fax) Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 *** 240-277-3388 (Cell) http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler *** NOTE CHANGED CELL NUMBER ***
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2003 18:18:12 UTC